|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 8:21:54 GMT -5
Does anyone here feature in-game politics to any great extent? It seems like 90% of what we talk about is fighting (this is true about every board and most blogs).
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 8:38:01 GMT -5
D&D is a wargame first. You need only look at the rules and ask yourself "How many pages are devoted to the combat rules?" "How many spells are non combat?" But could you define what you mean by "politics"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 11:27:44 GMT -5
Does anyone here feature in-game politics to any great extent? It seems like 90% of what we talk about is fighting (this is true about every board and most blogs). I do a bit, I would do a lot more if anyone ever decides to build a stronghold and get involved in that realm. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 12:43:55 GMT -5
By politics I mean things like: negotiation, palace intrigue, romance, jockeying for position among the players inside the group, social climbing - anything that has to do with dramatic conflict except for combat really.
I've got a juicy problem in the game where I'm a player where I think my man can gain a lot of leverage over some of the NPCs who we deal with, but first he has to make some deals with his fellow PCs to take them out of the negotiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 12:52:40 GMT -5
By politics I mean things like: negotiation, palace intrigue, romance, jockeying for position among the players inside the group, social climbing - anything that has to do with dramatic conflict except for combat really. I've got a juicy problem in the game where I'm a player where I think my man can gain a lot of leverage over some of the NPCs who we deal with, but first he has to make some deals with his fellow PCs to take them out of the negotiation. OK with this definition >I'm gonna go with "No" . My group is super harmonius, so no infighting of any ktnd in a long taime A funny infighting happened a long time ago. I forget all the details(My worst skill as a DM is record keeping) But one of the PCs sued the rest of the party over treasure distribution. another of the players bribed the judge |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 12:56:00 GMT -5
D&D is a wargame first. You need only look at the rules and ask yourself "How many pages are devoted to the combat rules?" "How many spells are non combat?" But could you define what you mean by "politics"? Go reread the rules for "Diplomacy." The negotiation rules are only 157 words, but they are the entire keystone of the game. Also, if you look under attributes in D%D, everything but Charisma gets a paragraph, while Charisma gets about a page and a half. The notion that "because it doesn't have a Negotiation skill you can't negotiate," though common, is just nonsensical. But, just like Diplomacy, negotiation was "You want to negotiate, negotiate." This should really surprise nobody, since Gary was well known as a fanatical Diplomacy player. Diplomacy was an extremely popular game in the 60s and early 70s, among non-wargamers as well as wargamers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 12:58:27 GMT -5
Does anyone here feature in-game politics to any great extent? It seems like 90% of what we talk about is fighting (this is true about every board and most blogs). The shift occurred when the target market for the game switched from adult wargamers (who all played Diplomacy) to 14 year old boys. That's also when morale rules started being ignored. This is not idle speculation; I have lost count of the number of forum participants in various places who have said "Oh, we just ignored morale/Charisma.' And then they wonder why the game becomes a slaughterfest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 13:00:12 GMT -5
By politics I mean things like: negotiation, palace intrigue, romance, jockeying for position among the players inside the group, social climbing - anything that has to do with dramatic conflict except for combat really. I've got a juicy problem in the game where I'm a player where I think my man can gain a lot of leverage over some of the NPCs who we deal with, but first he has to make some deals with his fellow PCs to take them out of the negotiation. This is one reason I despise the "one band of heroes tried and true welded together at the hip" model. You should be able to negotiate on your own. Why not? Are you chained to the other PCs? Do you all poop together at the same time in one huge common outhouse? Do you all sleep in the same bed, hang your clothes in the same closet, etc etc? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 13:06:24 GMT -5
So 157 words out of who knows how many is the keystone? Sure it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 15:25:48 GMT -5
So 157 words out of who knows how many is the keystone? Sure it is. Have you ever played Diplomacy? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 15:29:59 GMT -5
A couple of times, back before D&D stole me away from WW2 Minis and board games.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 15:40:11 GMT -5
This adventuring party is very much ad hoc at the moment. We seek a particular prize in common. My PC wants to acquire exclusive rights to negotiate its price. In other words, he is attempting to buy this prize from the other players with money, materiel and especially through promises. I have a feeling that it's value is far greater than we have been led to believe and that I can get a much better deal than the one that motivated us to set off for it in the first place.
Furthermore, turning the prize over to the adventure patron would weaken my PC's position in securing his main goal, so he has a lot to lose if the original deal stays in place. I feel like it was a mistake for the adventure patron to invite this character along in the first place - which was not necessary because I alternate between two different PCs depending on circumstances in the game world.
Is this backstabby? Is it underhanded? Is it infighting? IDK maybe. But 1) it's in character and 2) it should make for a great story later on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 16:10:10 GMT -5
So 157 words out of who knows how many is the keystone? Sure it is. Every experienced Diplomacy player in the world is laughing at you right now. In fact, the actual keystone of Diplomacy is only one sentence: "A player may say anything he (sic) likes, and he (sic) need not keep his promises." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 16:11:46 GMT -5
This adventuring party is very much ad hoc at the moment. We seek a particular prize in common. My PC wants to acquire exclusive rights to negotiate its price. In other words, he is attempting to buy this prize from the other players with money, materiel and especially through promises. I have a feeling that it's value is far greater than we have been led to believe and that I can get a much better deal than the one that motivated us to set off for it in the first place. Furthermore, turning the prize over to the adventure patron would weaken my PC's position in securing his main goal, so he has a lot to lose if the original deal stays in place. I feel like it was a mistake for the adventure patron to invite this character along in the first place - which was not necessary because I alternate between two different PCs depending on circumstances in the game world. Is this backstabby? Is it underhanded? Is it infighting? IDK maybe. But 1) it's in character and 2) it should make for a great story later on. My point is, how would the other PCs even know until it's too late? Just do it and present them with a fait accompli. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 16:54:23 GMT -5
So 157 words out of who knows how many is the keystone? Sure it is. Every experienced Diplomacy player in the world is laughing at you right now. In fact, the actual keystone of Diplomacy is only one sentence: "A player may say anything he (sic) likes, and he (sic) need not keep his promises." I promised PD no more arguing......... |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 16:59:06 GMT -5
My point is, how would the other PCs even know until it's too late? Just do it and present them with a fait accompli. There's another layer to this though. What if all the other players don't like it and don't think it's fun? Because the meta-rule of any game is that table rewards have to make up for any in-game setbacks, or else people will stop coming back to play. That's the big risk that I feel like I'm taking: what if the other players hate it and don't think it's fun? As much as you can say, "Oh well, what a big bunch of babies," it's still a table of friends playing together and I don't want to upset that. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Sept 12, 2017 18:08:20 GMT -5
My players characters are definitely Murder Hobos but I did have one episode not too different from Discoverer. There was a conflict over magic treasure. Party was high enough levels to build strongholds and Fighter types hoping to attract NPC spellcasters argued with PC caster. Group spent the entire session (about three hours) drafting a "party constitution." In a way it was glorious!
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 19:32:58 GMT -5
Shades of the Magna Carta!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 20:48:44 GMT -5
My point is, how would the other PCs even know until it's too late? Just do it and present them with a fait accompli. There's another layer to this though. What if all the other players don't like it and don't think it's fun? Because the meta-rule of any game is that table rewards have to make up for any in-game setbacks, or else people will stop coming back to play. That's the big risk that I feel like I'm taking: what if the other players hate it and don't think it's fun? As much as you can say, "Oh well, what a big bunch of babies," it's still a table of friends playing together and I don't want to upset that. I came from a wargame background. Being "friendly rivals" and admiring somebody for outsmarting you is part of the culture. Also, when Gary ran we never played with the exact same group twice. Again, this is why I hate the "one group of adventurers welded at the hip" paradigm. "Wandering soldiers of fortune who happen to travel together from time to time" works much better. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 13, 2017 20:53:24 GMT -5
Yes!
I don't cater to murderhobo's not that I have ever had any. Negotiation is a big thing in my game. People don't seem to realize that the noise of an unnecessary battle should draw more monsters for another battle, repeat and rinse until the murderhobo's are dead. Repeat and rinse until the players leave or until they learn better. I don't let that get started even with the young ones.
My game has been running for over 400 years of game time, some characters in the game are 20th to 22nd generation descendants of early characters. We have one retired elven character that is over 400 years old and he has been around as a PC and NPC for almost the entire game. Every surviving bloodline is always trying to improve their lot in life.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 23:05:49 GMT -5
This is an interesting topic. I've never run a pure dungeon crawl campaign, so noncombat situations arise constantly and sometimes for an entire session. Generally, I want to "roll initiative" at least once a session but that doesn't always happen. In your case, Scott, my advice is to do what your character would do. Conflict always breeds drama. I say stay true to your character.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 14, 2017 7:55:56 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm working through my party one PC by one. I have made agreements with four out of the six other PCs. The remaining two, I don't have their email/texts to I can't negotiate. We will have to do the deed at the table. Of course that's only one step in about four in my plan. One of those steps is to actually win the prize in question! If you want to see where we are now, you can start here |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 14, 2017 11:42:54 GMT -5
If you want to see where we are now, you can start hereGreat post!! This sounds like a blast! |
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 14, 2017 11:51:16 GMT -5
This is an interesting topic. I've never run a pure dungeon crawl campaign, so noncombat situations arise constantly and sometimes for an entire session. Generally, I want to "roll initiative" at least once a session but that doesn't always happen. In your case, Scott, my advice is to do what your character would do. Conflict always breeds drama. I say stay true to your character. I don't know anyone who runs a pure dungeon crawl campaign. Wilderness adventures and in town/city all play a big party in a campaign. What do you assume that noncombat situations do not arise in a dungeon crawl? Dungeon crawls have plenty of noncombat situations and in some cases an entire game night in a dungeon could be a noncombat situation. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 14, 2017 12:06:01 GMT -5
What do you assume that noncombat situations do not arise in a dungeon crawl? i assume nothing. I said pure dungeon crawl. Every dungeon is different. Dungeon crawls have plenty of noncombat situations and in some cases an entire game night in a dungeon could be a noncombat situation. Which is what I just said. Location doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Timer on Sept 14, 2017 12:08:20 GMT -5
This is an interesting topic. I've never run a pure dungeon crawl campaign, so noncombat situations arise constantly and sometimes for an entire session. Generally, I want to "roll initiative" at least once a session but that doesn't always happen. In your case, Scott, my advice is to do what your character would do. Conflict always breeds drama. I say stay true to your character. I don't know anyone who runs a pure dungeon crawl campaign. Wilderness adventures and in town/city all play a big party in a campaign. What do you assume that noncombat situations do not arise in a dungeon crawl? Dungeon crawls have plenty of noncombat situations and in some cases an entire game night in a dungeon could be a noncombat situation. I do run pure dungeon crawls and they have a lot of noncombat situations. The 3LBBs talk about so of the things that might come up in dungeons and inform the play thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by Bandersnatch on Sept 14, 2017 12:10:26 GMT -5
I don't care for dungeon crawls and but we do lot of city and wilderness play. Interacting with people in cities and the authorities is a blast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dartanian on Sept 14, 2017 13:40:09 GMT -5
I don't care for dungeon crawls and but we do lot of city and wilderness play. Interacting with people in cities and the authorities is a blast. The PC's getting on the bad side of the city watch is always a hoot. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 14, 2017 16:24:42 GMT -5
Everything boils down to politics. If the player's want to play the game or not it doesn't matter because they are still pieces on the board.
Everybody is looking out for Number 1. The local lord is a politician, he is looking at these heroes and seeing an opportunity. He is going to try and look like an angel, and start picking targets. If you are caught playing the political game, you aren't a very good player of it. Maybe he did set things up so that the village which the PCs saved would perish quietly. Maybe he needed that land to hid a military outpost where he could train troops that he technically isn't supposed to have. He can make it look like something that it isn't, but now that plan is out the window, but he would be a fool to punish these heroes. Nothing links him to that plan, it looked like a bunch of Goblins were doing it. Adventurers are like the marines! No, he is going to reward them and maybe stir them to another direction. If they die, big deal; but if they live. WELL! All the more power he has.
Nobles are all bad news. Even the best of them can send thousands of men to their deaths and still finish their breakfast. When you are ruling people you want them to see every great thing that you do, and blame all of the dirty stuff on their rivals.
The deal is that the DM has to move lots of PCs around, and they can't do this without politics. Read the DMG again, you'll notice that there is a political game there. Feudal society was picked as the basis for a reason, but there are long lists of other political systems that can also exist. A great example of D&D politics was the Drow. This was advanced stuff! A lot of thought went into their society and how they interact with each other, right down to social etiquette of the drow. I think that everybody has at least one friend who is all nerd over drow, this is why.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 14, 2017 17:49:46 GMT -5
I don't care for dungeon crawls and but we do lot of city and wilderness play. Interacting with people in cities and the authorities is a blast. City and country play - in and around "civilization" - is fascinating when done right. It's straightforward to swing your sword at a kobold in a dungeon. What about at a bandit behind the pub? Or in town square? The bandit might deserve it more, but the consequences are much different. |
|
